Re: [ippm] Benjamin Kaduk's No Objection on draft-ietf-ippm-stamp-09: (with COMMENT)
Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@mit.edu> Thu, 31 October 2019 21:26 UTC
Return-Path: <kaduk@mit.edu>
X-Original-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ippm@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3F235120818; Thu, 31 Oct 2019 14:26:21 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.199
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.199 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Y7BYgdzfPXSd; Thu, 31 Oct 2019 14:26:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from outgoing.mit.edu (outgoing-auth-1.mit.edu [18.9.28.11]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9514A120145; Thu, 31 Oct 2019 14:26:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from kduck.mit.edu ([24.16.140.251]) (authenticated bits=56) (User authenticated as kaduk@ATHENA.MIT.EDU) by outgoing.mit.edu (8.14.7/8.12.4) with ESMTP id x9VLQ9gt015885 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Thu, 31 Oct 2019 17:26:11 -0400
Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2019 14:26:09 -0700
From: Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@mit.edu>
To: Greg Mirsky <gregimirsky@gmail.com>
Cc: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-ippm-stamp@ietf.org, Tal Mizrahi <tal.mizrahi.phd@gmail.com>, IPPM Chairs <ippm-chairs@ietf.org>, IETF IPPM WG <ippm@ietf.org>
Message-ID: <20191031212609.GN88302@kduck.mit.edu>
References: <157185231724.28314.17849634169462380907.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <CA+RyBmU8wWNHNH3d5ea2S6QF4Farz57Hip_s_jfsXveHngo_uQ@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CA+RyBmU8wWNHNH3d5ea2S6QF4Farz57Hip_s_jfsXveHngo_uQ@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.12.1 (2019-06-15)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ippm/Ls8Qb2aly5g7XL31rMVT7rXuqgo>
Subject: Re: [ippm] Benjamin Kaduk's No Objection on draft-ietf-ippm-stamp-09: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: ippm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF IP Performance Metrics Working Group <ippm.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ippm>, <mailto:ippm-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ippm/>
List-Post: <mailto:ippm@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ippm-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ippm>, <mailto:ippm-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2019 21:26:21 -0000
Hi Greg, That seems much more clear; thanks! -Ben On Mon, Oct 28, 2019 at 01:03:00PM -0700, Greg Mirsky wrote: > Hi Benjamin, > thank you for the comments. We'll continue working with the RFC Editor to > improve the text. > To address two other comments we propose updates as below in-line under the > tag GIM>>. > Also, attached are the working new version with the updates and the diff to > -09 version. > Please let us know if these updates are acceptable and address your > comments. > > Regards, > Greg > > On Wed, Oct 23, 2019 at 10:38 AM Benjamin Kaduk via Datatracker < > noreply@ietf.org> wrote: > > > Benjamin Kaduk has entered the following ballot position for > > draft-ietf-ippm-stamp-09: No Objection > > > > When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all > > email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this > > introductory paragraph, however.) > > > > > > Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html > > for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. > > > > > > The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ippm-stamp/ > > > > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > COMMENT: > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > Thank you for addressing my Discuss points! > > > > A few final comments on the -09, though I don't think any response is > > needed > > for any of them: > > > > There's still some editing for grammar to do, but I will trust in the RFC > > Editor > > for that. > > > > Section 4.2's use of RFC 6038 as a reference for "the symmetrical size of > > test packets" > > with no section reference is a bit surprising, though perhaps not > > objectionable. > > > GIM>> Formats of TWAMP symmetrical packet and STAMP base packet have minor > differences. Thus we add a reference to Section 3 of RFC 6038 where the > Symmetrical Size capability is defined. > > > > > Section 4.6 has changed the discussion of reflected packet size in > > STAMP/TWAMP > > interop scenarios, from "STAMP Session-Reflector will use a symmetric size" > > to "STAMP Session-Reflector will always transmit the base packet (i.e., > > not a > > symmetric size)". I will trust you that this is accurate, since I cannot > > confirm it myself. > > > GIM>> Propose the following update to the last paragraph in Section 4.6: > OLD TEXT: > A STAMP Session-Reflector that supports this specification would > transmit the base packet (Figure 5) regardless of the size of the > Padding field in the packet received from TWAMP Session-Sender. > Also, STAMP does not support the Reflect Octets capability defined in > [RFC6038]. If the Server Octets field is present in the TWAMP > Session-Sender packet, STAMP Session-Reflector will not copy the > content starting from the Server Octets field and will transmit the > reflected packet, as displayed in Figure 5. > NEW TEXT: > A STAMP Session-Reflector that supports this specification will > transmit the base packet (Figure 5) if it receives a packet smaller > than the STAMP base packet. If the packet received from TWAMP > Session-Sender is larger than the STAMP base packet, the STAMP > Session-Reflector that supports this specification will copy the > content of the remainder of the received packet to transmit reflected > packet of symmetrical size. > > > > > Network Working Group G. Mirsky > Internet-Draft ZTE Corp. > Intended status: Standards Track G. Jun > Expires: April 30, 2020 ZTE Corporation > H. Nydell > Accedian Networks > R. Foote > Nokia > October 28, 2019 > > > Simple Two-way Active Measurement Protocol > draft-ietf-ippm-stamp-10 > > Abstract > > This document describes a Simple Two-way Active Measurement Protocol > which enables the measurement of both one-way and round-trip > performance metrics like delay, delay variation, and packet loss. > > Status of This Memo > > This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the > provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. > > Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering > Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute > working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- > Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. > > Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months > and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any > time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference > material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." > > This Internet-Draft will expire on April 30, 2020. > > Copyright Notice > > Copyright (c) 2019 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the > document authors. All rights reserved. > > This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal > Provisions Relating to IETF Documents > (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of > publication of this document. Please review these documents > carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect > to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must > > > > Mirsky, et al. Expires April 30, 2020 [Page 1] > > Internet-Draft STAMP October 2019 > > > include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of > the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as > described in the Simplified BSD License. > > Table of Contents > > 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 > 2. Conventions used in this document . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 > 2.1. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 > 2.2. Requirements Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 > 3. Operation and Management of Performance Measurement Based on > STAMP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 > 4. Theory of Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 > 4.1. UDP Port Numbers in STAMP Testing . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 > 4.2. Session-Sender Behavior and Packet Format . . . . . . . . 5 > 4.2.1. Session-Sender Packet Format in Unauthenticated Mode 5 > 4.2.2. Session-Sender Packet Format in Authenticated Mode . 7 > 4.3. Session-Reflector Behavior and Packet Format . . . . . . 8 > 4.3.1. Session-Reflector Packet Format in Unauthenticated > Mode . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 > 4.3.2. Session-Reflector Packet Format in Authenticated Mode 10 > 4.4. Integrity Protection in STAMP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 > 4.5. Confidentiality Protection in STAMP . . . . . . . . . . . 12 > 4.6. Interoperability with TWAMP Light . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 > 5. Operational Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 > 6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 > 7. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 > 8. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 > 9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 > 9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 > 9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 > Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 > > 1. Introduction > > Development and deployment of the Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol > (TWAMP) [RFC5357] and its extensions, e.g., [RFC6038] that defined > Symmetrical Size for TWAMP, provided invaluable experience. Several > independent implementations of both TWAMP and TWAMP Light exist, have > been deployed, and provide important operational performance > measurements. > > At the same time, there has been noticeable interest in using a more > straightforward mechanism for active performance monitoring that can > provide deterministic behavior and inherent separation of control > (vendor-specific configuration or orchestration) and test functions. > Recent work on IP Edge to Customer Equipment using TWAMP Light from > Broadband Forum [BBF.TR-390] demonstrated that interoperability among > > > > Mirsky, et al. Expires April 30, 2020 [Page 2] > > Internet-Draft STAMP October 2019 > > > implementations of TWAMP Light is difficult because the composition > and operation of TWAMP Light were not sufficiently specified in > [RFC5357]. According to [RFC8545], TWAMP Light includes a sub-set of > TWAMP-Test functions. Thus, to have a comprehensive tool to measure > packet loss and delay requires support by other applications that > provide, for example, control and security. > > This document defines an active performance measurement test > protocol, Simple Two-way Active Measurement Protocol (STAMP), that > enables measurement of both one-way and round-trip performance > metrics like delay, delay variation, and packet loss. Some TWAMP > extensions, e.g., [RFC7750] are supported by the extensions to STAMP > base specification in [I-D.ietf-ippm-stamp-option-tlv]. > > 2. Conventions used in this document > > 2.1. Terminology > > STAMP - Simple Two-way Active Measurement Protocol > > NTP - Network Time Protocol > > PTP - Precision Time Protocol > > HMAC Hashed Message Authentication Code > > OWAMP One-Way Active Measurement Protocol > > TWAMP Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol > > MBZ Must be Zero > > 2.2. Requirements Language > > The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", > "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and > "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP > 14 [RFC2119] [RFC8174] when, and only when, they appear in all > capitals, as shown here. > > 3. Operation and Management of Performance Measurement Based on STAMP > > Figure 1 presents the Simple Two-way Active Measurement Protocol > (STAMP) Session-Sender, and Session-Reflector with a measurement > session. In this document, a measurement session also referred to as > STAMP session, is the bi-directional packet flow between one specific > Session-Sender and one particular Session-Reflector for a time > duration. The configuration and management of the STAMP Session- > > > > Mirsky, et al. Expires April 30, 2020 [Page 3] > > Internet-Draft STAMP October 2019 > > > Sender, Session-Reflector, and management of the STAMP sessions are > outside the scope of this document and can be achieved through > various means. A few examples are: Command Line Interface, > telecommunication services' OSS/BSS systems, SNMP, and Netconf/YANG- > based SDN controllers. > > > o----------------------------------------------------------o > | Configuration and | > | Management | > o----------------------------------------------------------o > || || > || || > || || > +----------------------+ +-------------------------+ > | STAMP Session-Sender | <--- STAMP---> | STAMP Session-Reflector | > +----------------------+ +-------------------------+ > > > Figure 1: STAMP Reference Model > > 4. Theory of Operation > > STAMP Session-Sender transmits test packets over UDP transport toward > STAMP Session-Reflector. STAMP Session-Reflector receives Session- > Sender's packet and acts according to the configuration. Two modes > of STAMP Session-Reflector characterize the expected behavior and, > consequently, performance metrics that can be measured: > > o Stateless - STAMP Session-Reflector does not maintain test state > and will use the value in the Sequence Number field in the > received packet as the value for the Sequence Number field in the > reflected packet. As a result, values in Sequence Number and > Session-Sender Sequence Number fields are the same, and only > round-trip packet loss can be calculated while the reflector is > operating in stateless mode. > > o Stateful - STAMP Session-Reflector maintains test state thus > enabling the ability to determine forward loss, gaps recognized in > the received sequence number. As a result, both near-end > (forward) and far-end (backward) packet loss can be computed. > That implies that the STAMP Session-Reflector MUST keep a state > for each configured STAMP-test session, uniquely identifying > STAMP-test packets to one such session instance, and enabling > adding a sequence number in the test reply that is individually > incremented on a per-session basis. > > > > > > Mirsky, et al. Expires April 30, 2020 [Page 4] > > Internet-Draft STAMP October 2019 > > > STAMP supports two authentication modes: unauthenticated and > authenticated. Unauthenticated STAMP test packets, defined in > Section 4.2.1 and Section 4.3.1, ensure interworking between STAMP > and TWAMP Light as described in Section 4.6 packet formats. > > By default, STAMP uses symmetrical packets, i.e., size of the packet > transmitted by Session-Reflector equals the size of the packet > received by the Session-Reflector. > > 4.1. UDP Port Numbers in STAMP Testing > > A STAMP Session-Sender MUST use UDP port 862 (TWAMP-Test Receiver > Port) as the default destination UDP port number. A STAMP > implementation of Session-Sender MUST be able to use as the > destination UDP port numbers from User, a.k.a. Registered, Ports and > Dynamic, a.k.a. Private or Ephemeral, Ports ranges defined in > [RFC6335]. Before using numbers from the User Ports range, the > possible impact on the network MUST be carefully studied and agreed > by all users of the network domain where the test has been planned. > > An implementation of STAMP Session-Reflector by default MUST receive > STAMP test packets on UDP port 862. An implementation of Session- > Reflector that supports this specification MUST be able to define the > port number to receive STAMP test packets from User Ports and Dynamic > Ports ranges that are defined in [RFC6335]. STAMP defines two > different test packet formats, one for packets transmitted by the > STAMP-Session-Sender and one for packets transmitted by the STAMP- > Session-Reflector. > > 4.2. Session-Sender Behavior and Packet Format > > A STAMP Session-Reflector supports the symmetrical size of test > packets, as defined in Section 3 [RFC6038], as the default behavior. > A reflected test packet includes more information and thus is larger. > Because of that, the base STAMP Session-Sender packet is padded to > match the size of a reflected STAMP test packet. Hence, the base > STAMP Session-Sender packet has a minimum size of 44 octets in > unauthenticated mode, see Figure 2, and 112 octets in the > authenticated mode, see Figure 4. The variable length of a test > packet in STAMP is supported by using Extra Padding TLV defined in > [I-D.ietf-ippm-stamp-option-tlv]. > > 4.2.1. Session-Sender Packet Format in Unauthenticated Mode > > STAMP Session-Sender packet format in unauthenticated mode: > > > > > > > Mirsky, et al. Expires April 30, 2020 [Page 5] > > Internet-Draft STAMP October 2019 > > > 0 1 2 3 > 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > | Sequence Number | > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > | Timestamp | > | | > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > | Error Estimate | | > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + > | | > | | > | Reserved (30 octets) | > | | > | | > | | > | | > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > > Figure 2: STAMP Session-Sender test packet format in unauthenticated > mode > > where fields are defined as the following: > > o Sequence Number is four octets long field. For each new session > its value starts at zero and is incremented with each transmitted > packet. > > o Timestamp is eight octets long field. STAMP node MUST support > Network Time Protocol (NTP) version 4 64-bit timestamp format > [RFC5905], the format used in [RFC5357]. STAMP node MAY support > IEEE 1588v2 Precision Time Protocol (PTP) truncated 64-bit > timestamp format [IEEE.1588.2008], the format used in [RFC8186]. > The use of the specific format, NTP or PTP, is part of > configuration of the Session-Sender or the particular test > session. > > o Error Estimate is two octets long field with format displayed in > Figure 3 > > 0 1 > 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > |S|Z| Scale | Multiplier | > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > > Figure 3: Error Estimate Format > > > > > Mirsky, et al. Expires April 30, 2020 [Page 6] > > Internet-Draft STAMP October 2019 > > > where S, Scale, and Multiplier fields are interpreted as they have > been defined in section 4.1.2 [RFC4656]; and Z field - as has been > defined in section 2.3 [RFC8186]: > > * 0 - NTP 64 bit format of a timestamp; > > * 1 - PTPv2 truncated format of a timestamp. > > The default behavior of the STAMP Session-Sender and Session- > Reflector is to use the NTP 64-bit timestamp format (Z field value > of 0) An operator, using configuration/management function, MAY > configure STAMP Session-Sender and Session-Reflector to using the > PTPv2 truncated format of a timestamp (Z field value of 1). Note, > that an implementation of a Session-Sender that supports this > specification MAY be configured to use PTPv2 format of a timestamp > even though the Session-Reflector is configured to use NTP format. > > o Reserved field in the Session-Sender unauthenticated packet is 30 > octets long. It MUST be all zeroed on the transmission and MUST > be ignored on receipt. > > 4.2.2. Session-Sender Packet Format in Authenticated Mode > > STAMP Session-Sender packet format in authenticated mode: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mirsky, et al. Expires April 30, 2020 [Page 7] > > Internet-Draft STAMP October 2019 > > > 0 1 2 3 > 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > | Sequence Number | > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > | | > | MBZ (12 octets) | > | | > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > | Timestamp | > | | > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > | Error Estimate | | > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + > ~ ~ > | MBZ (70 octets) | > ~ ~ > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > | | > | HMAC (16 octets) | > | | > | | > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > > Figure 4: STAMP Session-Sender test packet format in authenticated > mode > > The field definitions are the same as the unauthenticated mode, > listed in Section 4.2.1. Also, Must-Be-Zero (MBZ) fields are used to > to make the packet length a multiple of 16 octets. The value of the > field MUST be zeroed on transmission and MUST be ignored on receipt. > Note, that the MBZ field is used to calculate a key-hashed message > authentication code (HMAC) ([RFC2104]) hash. Also, the packet > includes HMAC hash at the end of the PDU. The detailed use of the > HMAC field is described in Section 4.4. > > 4.3. Session-Reflector Behavior and Packet Format > > The Session-Reflector receives the STAMP test packet and verifies it. > If the base STAMP test packet validated, the Session-Reflector, that > supports this specification, prepares and transmits the reflected > test packet symmetric to the packet received from the Session-Sender > copying the content beyond the size of the base STAMP packet (see > Section 4.2). > > > > > > > > Mirsky, et al. Expires April 30, 2020 [Page 8] > > Internet-Draft STAMP October 2019 > > > 4.3.1. Session-Reflector Packet Format in Unauthenticated Mode > > For unauthenticated mode: > > 0 1 2 3 > 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > | Sequence Number | > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > | Timestamp | > | | > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > | Error Estimate | MBZ | > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > | Receive Timestamp | > | | > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > | Session-Sender Sequence Number | > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > | Session-Sender Timestamp | > | | > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > | Session-Sender Error Estimate | MBZ | > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > |Ses-Sender TTL | Reserved | > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > > Figure 5: STAMP Session-Reflector test packet format in > unauthenticated mode > > where fields are defined as the following: > > o Sequence Number is four octets long field. The value of the > Sequence Number field is set according to the mode of the STAMP > Session-Reflector: > > * in the stateless mode, the Session-Reflector copies the value > from the received STAMP test packet's Sequence Number field; > > * in the stateful mode, the Session-Reflector counts the > transmitted STAMP test packets. It starts with zero and is > incremented by one for each subsequent packet for each test > session. The Session-Reflector uses that counter to set the > value of the Sequence Number field. > > o Timestamp and Receive Timestamp fields are each eight octets long. > The format of these fields, NTP or PTPv2, indicated by the Z field > of the Error Estimate field as described in Section 4.2. Receive > > > > Mirsky, et al. Expires April 30, 2020 [Page 9] > > Internet-Draft STAMP October 2019 > > > Timestamp is the time the test packet was received by the Session- > Reflector. Timestamp - the time taken by the Session-Reflector at > the start of transmitting the test packet. > > o Error Estimate has the same size and interpretation as described > in Section 4.2. It is applicable to both Timestamp and Receive > Timestamp. > > o Session-Sender Sequence Number, Session-Sender Timestamp, and > Session-Sender Error Estimate are copies of the corresponding > fields in the STAMP test packet sent by the Session-Sender. > > o Session-Sender TTL is one octet long field, and its value is the > copy of the TTL field in IPv4 (or Hop Limit in IPv6) from the > received STAMP test packet. > > o MBZ is used to achieve alignment of fields within the packet on a > four octets boundary. The value of the field MUST be zeroed on > transmission and MUST be ignored on receipt. > > o Reserved field in the Session-Reflector unauthenticated packet is > three octets long. It MUST be all zeroed on the transmission and > MUST be ignored on receipt. > > 4.3.2. Session-Reflector Packet Format in Authenticated Mode > > For the authenticated mode: > > 0 1 2 3 > 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > | Sequence Number | > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > | MBZ (12 octets) | > | | > | | > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > | Timestamp | > | | > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > | Error Estimate | | > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + > | MBZ (6 octets) | > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > | Receive Timestamp | > | | > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > | MBZ (8 octets) | > > > > Mirsky, et al. Expires April 30, 2020 [Page 10] > > Internet-Draft STAMP October 2019 > > > | | > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > | Session-Sender Sequence Number | > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > | MBZ (12 octets) | > | | > | | > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > | Session-Sender Timestamp | > | | > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > | Session-Sender Error Estimate | | > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + > | MBZ (6 octets) | > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > |Ses-Sender TTL | | > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ + > | | > | MBZ (15 octets) | > | | > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > | HMAC (16 octets) | > | | > | | > | | > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > > > Figure 6: STAMP Session-Reflector test packet format in authenticated > mode > > The field definitions are the same as the unauthenticated mode, > listed in Section 4.3.1. Additionally, the MBZ field is used to to > make the packet length a multiple of 16 octets. The value of the > field MUST be zeroed on transmission and MUST be ignored on receipt. > Note, that the MBZ field is used to calculate HMAC hash value. Also, > STAMP Session-Reflector test packet format in authenticated mode > includes HMAC ([RFC2104]) hash at the end of the PDU. The detailed > use of the HMAC field is in Section 4.4. > > 4.4. Integrity Protection in STAMP > > Authenticated mode provides integrity protection to each STAMP > message by adding Hashed Message Authentication Code (HMAC). STAMP > uses HMAC-SHA-256 truncated to 128 bits (similarly to the use of it > in IPSec defined in [RFC4868]); hence the length of the HMAC field is > 16 octets. In the Authenticated mode, HMAC covers the first six > blocks (96 octets). HMAC uses its own key that may be unique for > > > > Mirsky, et al. Expires April 30, 2020 [Page 11] > > Internet-Draft STAMP October 2019 > > > each STAMP test session; key management and the mechanisms to > distribute the HMAC key are outside the scope of this specification. > One example is to use an orchestrator to configure HMAC key based on > STAMP YANG data model [I-D.ietf-ippm-stamp-yang]. HMAC MUST be > verified as early as possible to avoid using or propagating corrupted > data. > > Future specifications may define the use of other, more advanced > cryptographic algorithms, possibly providing an update to the STAMP > YANG data model [I-D.ietf-ippm-stamp-yang]. > > 4.5. Confidentiality Protection in STAMP > > If confidentiality protection for STAMP is required, a STAMP test > session MUST use a secured transport. For example, STAMP packets > could be transmitted in the dedicated IPsec tunnel or share the IPsec > tunnel with the monitored flow. Also, Datagram Transport Layer > Security protocol would provide the desired confidentiality > protection. > > 4.6. Interoperability with TWAMP Light > > One of the essential requirements to STAMP is the ability to > interwork with a TWAMP Light device. Because STAMP and TWAMP use > different algorithms in Authenticated mode (HMAC-SHA-256 vs. HMAC- > SHA-1), interoperability is only considered for Unauthenticated mode. > There are two possible combinations for such use case: > > o STAMP Session-Sender with TWAMP Light Session-Reflector; > > o TWAMP Light Session-Sender with STAMP Session-Reflector. > > In the former case, the Session-Sender might not be aware that its > Session-Reflector does not support STAMP. For example, a TWAMP Light > Session-Reflector may not support the use of UDP port 862 as > specified in [RFC8545]. Thus Section 4. permits a STAMP Session- > Sender to use alternative ports. If any of STAMP extensions are > used, the TWAMP Light Session-Reflector will view them as Packet > Padding field. > > In the latter scenario, if a TWAMP Light Session-Sender does not > support the use of UDP port 862, the test management system MUST set > STAMP Session-Reflector to use UDP port number, as permitted by > Section 4. The Session-Reflector MUST be set to use the default > format for its timestamps, NTP. > > A STAMP Session-Reflector that supports this specification will > transmit the base packet (Figure 5) if it receives a packet smaller > > > > Mirsky, et al. Expires April 30, 2020 [Page 12] > > Internet-Draft STAMP October 2019 > > > than the STAMP base packet. If the packet received from TWAMP > Session-Sender is larger than the STAMP base packet, the STAMP > Session-Reflector that supports this specification will copy the > content of the remainder of the received packet to transmit reflected > packet of symmetrical size. > > 5. Operational Considerations > > STAMP is intended to be used on production networks to enable the > operator to assess service level agreements based on packet delay, > delay variation, and loss. When using STAMP over the Internet, > especially when STAMP test packets are transmitted with the > destination UDP port number from the User Ports range, the possible > impact of the STAMP test packets MUST be thoroughly analyzed. The > use of STAMP for each case MUST be agreed by users of nodes hosting > the Session-Sender and Session-Reflector before starting the STAMP > test session. > > Also, the use of the well-known port number as the destination UDP > port number in STAMP test packets transmitted by a Session-Sender > would not impede the ability to measure performance in an Equal Cost > Multipath environment and analysis in Section 5.3 [RFC8545] fully > applies to STAMP. > > 6. IANA Considerations > > This document doesn't have any IANA action. This section may be > removed before the publication. > > 7. Security Considerations > > [RFC5357] does not identify security considerations specific to > TWAMP-Test but refers to security considerations identified for OWAMP > in [RFC4656]. Since both OWAMP and TWAMP include control plane and > data plane components, only security considerations related to OWAMP- > Test, discussed in Sections 6.2, 6.3 [RFC4656] apply to STAMP. > > STAMP uses the well-known UDP port number allocated for the OWAMP- > Test/TWAMP-Test Receiver port. Thus the security considerations and > measures to mitigate the risk of the attack using the registered port > number documented in Section 6 [RFC8545] equally apply to STAMP. > Because of the control and management of a STAMP test being outside > the scope of this specification only the more general requirement is > set: > > To mitigate the possible attack vector, the control, and > management of a STAMP test session MUST use the secured transport. > > > > > Mirsky, et al. Expires April 30, 2020 [Page 13] > > Internet-Draft STAMP October 2019 > > > The load of the STAMP test packets offered to a network MUST be > carefully estimated, and the possible impact on the existing > services MUST be thoroughly analyzed before launching the test > session. [RFC8085] section 3.1.5 provides guidance on handling > network load for UDP-based protocol. While the characteristic of > test traffic depends on the test objective, it is highly > recommended to stay in the limits as provided in [RFC8085]. > > Use of HMAC-SHA-256 in the authenticated mode protects the data > integrity of the STAMP test packets. > > 8. Acknowledgments > > Authors express their appreciation to Jose Ignacio Alvarez-Hamelin > and Brian Weis for their great insights into the security and > identity protection, and the most helpful and practical suggestions. > Also, our sincere thanks to David Ball and Rakesh Gandhi or their > thorough reviews and helpful comments. > > 9. References > > 9.1. Normative References > > [I-D.ietf-ippm-stamp-option-tlv] > Mirsky, G., Xiao, M., Jun, G., Nydell, H., Foote, R., and > A. Masputra, "Simple Two-way Active Measurement Protocol > Optional Extensions", draft-ietf-ippm-stamp-option-tlv-01 > (work in progress), September 2019. > > [IEEE.1588.2008] > "Standard for a Precision Clock Synchronization Protocol > for Networked Measurement and Control Systems", > IEEE Standard 1588, March 2008. > > [RFC2104] Krawczyk, H., Bellare, M., and R. Canetti, "HMAC: Keyed- > Hashing for Message Authentication", RFC 2104, > DOI 10.17487/RFC2104, February 1997, > <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2104>. > > [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate > Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, > DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, > <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>. > > [RFC4656] Shalunov, S., Teitelbaum, B., Karp, A., Boote, J., and M. > Zekauskas, "A One-way Active Measurement Protocol > (OWAMP)", RFC 4656, DOI 10.17487/RFC4656, September 2006, > <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4656>. > > > > Mirsky, et al. Expires April 30, 2020 [Page 14] > > Internet-Draft STAMP October 2019 > > > [RFC5357] Hedayat, K., Krzanowski, R., Morton, A., Yum, K., and J. > Babiarz, "A Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol (TWAMP)", > RFC 5357, DOI 10.17487/RFC5357, October 2008, > <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5357>. > > [RFC5905] Mills, D., Martin, J., Ed., Burbank, J., and W. Kasch, > "Network Time Protocol Version 4: Protocol and Algorithms > Specification", RFC 5905, DOI 10.17487/RFC5905, June 2010, > <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5905>. > > [RFC6038] Morton, A. and L. Ciavattone, "Two-Way Active Measurement > Protocol (TWAMP) Reflect Octets and Symmetrical Size > Features", RFC 6038, DOI 10.17487/RFC6038, October 2010, > <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6038>. > > [RFC6335] Cotton, M., Eggert, L., Touch, J., Westerlund, M., and S. > Cheshire, "Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) > Procedures for the Management of the Service Name and > Transport Protocol Port Number Registry", BCP 165, > RFC 6335, DOI 10.17487/RFC6335, August 2011, > <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6335>. > > [RFC8174] Leiba, B., "Ambiguity of Uppercase vs Lowercase in RFC > 2119 Key Words", BCP 14, RFC 8174, DOI 10.17487/RFC8174, > May 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8174>. > > [RFC8186] Mirsky, G. and I. Meilik, "Support of the IEEE 1588 > Timestamp Format in a Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol > (TWAMP)", RFC 8186, DOI 10.17487/RFC8186, June 2017, > <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8186>. > > [RFC8545] Morton, A., Ed. and G. Mirsky, Ed., "Well-Known Port > Assignments for the One-Way Active Measurement Protocol > (OWAMP) and the Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol > (TWAMP)", RFC 8545, DOI 10.17487/RFC8545, March 2019, > <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8545>. > > 9.2. Informative References > > [BBF.TR-390] > "Performance Measurement from IP Edge to Customer > Equipment using TWAMP Light", BBF TR-390, May 2017. > > [I-D.ietf-ippm-stamp-yang] > Mirsky, G., Xiao, M., and W. Luo, "Simple Two-way Active > Measurement Protocol (STAMP) Data Model", draft-ietf-ippm- > stamp-yang-05 (work in progress), October 2019. > > > > > Mirsky, et al. Expires April 30, 2020 [Page 15] > > Internet-Draft STAMP October 2019 > > > [RFC4868] Kelly, S. and S. Frankel, "Using HMAC-SHA-256, HMAC-SHA- > 384, and HMAC-SHA-512 with IPsec", RFC 4868, > DOI 10.17487/RFC4868, May 2007, > <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4868>. > > [RFC7750] Hedin, J., Mirsky, G., and S. Baillargeon, "Differentiated > Service Code Point and Explicit Congestion Notification > Monitoring in the Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol > (TWAMP)", RFC 7750, DOI 10.17487/RFC7750, February 2016, > <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7750>. > > [RFC8085] Eggert, L., Fairhurst, G., and G. Shepherd, "UDP Usage > Guidelines", BCP 145, RFC 8085, DOI 10.17487/RFC8085, > March 2017, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8085>. > > Authors' Addresses > > Greg Mirsky > ZTE Corp. > > Email: gregimirsky@gmail.com > > > Guo Jun > ZTE Corporation > 68# Zijinghua Road > Nanjing, Jiangsu 210012 > P.R.China > > Phone: +86 18105183663 > Email: guo.jun2@zte.com.cn > > > Henrik Nydell > Accedian Networks > > Email: hnydell@accedian.com > > > Richard Foote > Nokia > > Email: footer.foote@nokia.com > > > > > > > > > Mirsky, et al. Expires April 30, 2020 [Page 16] > < draft-ietf-ippm-stamp-09.txt draft-ietf-ippm-stamp-10.txt > > Network Working Group G. Mirsky Network Working Group G. Mirsky > Internet-Draft ZTE Corp. Internet-Draft ZTE Corp. > Intended status: Standards Track G. Jun Intended status: Standards Track G. Jun > Expires: April 20, 2020 ZTE Corporation Expires: April 30, 2020 ZTE Corporation > H. Nydell H. Nydell > Accedian Networks Accedian Networks > R. Foote R. Foote > Nokia Nokia > October 18, 2019 October 28, 2019 > Simple Two-way Active Measurement Protocol Simple Two-way Active Measurement Protocol > draft-ietf-ippm-stamp-09 draft-ietf-ippm-stamp-10 > Abstract Abstract > This document describes a Simple Two-way Active Measurement This document describes a Simple Two-way Active Measurement > Protocol Protocol > which enables the measurement of both one-way and round-trip which enables the measurement of both one-way and round-trip > performance metrics like delay, delay variation, and packet loss. performance metrics like delay, delay variation, and packet loss. > Status of This Memo Status of This Memo > This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the > skipping to change at page 1, line 37 P: skipping to change at page 1, line 37 P: > Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering > Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute > working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current > Internet- Internet- > Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. > Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six > months months > and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at > any any > time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference > material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." > This Internet-Draft will expire on April 20, 2020. This Internet-Draft will expire on April 30, 2020. > Copyright Notice Copyright Notice > Copyright (c) 2019 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the Copyright (c) 2019 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the > document authors. All rights reserved. document authors. All rights reserved. > This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal > Provisions Relating to IETF Documents Provisions Relating to IETF Documents > (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of > publication of this document. Please review these documents publication of this document. Please review these documents > skipping to change at page 5, line 37 P: skipping to change at page 5, line 37 P: > Reflector that supports this specification MUST be able to define Reflector that supports this specification MUST be able to define > the the > port number to receive STAMP test packets from User Ports and port number to receive STAMP test packets from User Ports and > Dynamic Dynamic > Ports ranges that are defined in [RFC6335]. STAMP defines two Ports ranges that are defined in [RFC6335]. STAMP defines two > different test packet formats, one for packets transmitted by the different test packet formats, one for packets transmitted by the > STAMP-Session-Sender and one for packets transmitted by the STAMP-Session-Sender and one for packets transmitted by the > STAMP- STAMP- > Session-Reflector. Session-Reflector. > 4.2. Session-Sender Behavior and Packet Format 4.2. Session-Sender Behavior and Packet Format > A STAMP Session-Reflector supports the symmetrical size of test A STAMP Session-Reflector supports the symmetrical size of test > packets [RFC6038] as the default behavior. A reflected test packets, as defined in Section 3 [RFC6038], as the default > packet behavior. > includes more information and thus is larger. Because of that, A reflected test packet includes more information and thus is > the larger. > base STAMP Session-Sender packet is padded to match the size of a Because of that, the base STAMP Session-Sender packet is padded > to > reflected STAMP test packet. Hence, the base STAMP Session-Sender match the size of a reflected STAMP test packet. Hence, the base > packet has a minimum size of 44 octets in unauthenticated mode, STAMP Session-Sender packet has a minimum size of 44 octets in > see > Figure 2, and 112 octets in the authenticated mode, see Figure 4. unauthenticated mode, see Figure 2, and 112 octets in the > The variable length of a test packet in STAMP is supported by authenticated mode, see Figure 4. The variable length of a test > using > Extra Padding TLV defined in [I-D.ietf-ippm-stamp-option-tlv]. packet in STAMP is supported by using Extra Padding TLV defined > in > [I-D.ietf-ippm-stamp-option-tlv]. > 4.2.1. Session-Sender Packet Format in Unauthenticated Mode 4.2.1. Session-Sender Packet Format in Unauthenticated Mode > STAMP Session-Sender packet format in unauthenticated mode: STAMP Session-Sender packet format in unauthenticated mode: > 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 > 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > | Sequence Number | | Sequence Number | > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > skipping to change at page 12, line 50 P: skipping to change at page 12, line 50 P: > Sender to use alternative ports. If any of STAMP extensions are Sender to use alternative ports. If any of STAMP extensions are > used, the TWAMP Light Session-Reflector will view them as Packet used, the TWAMP Light Session-Reflector will view them as Packet > Padding field. Padding field. > In the latter scenario, if a TWAMP Light Session-Sender does not In the latter scenario, if a TWAMP Light Session-Sender does not > support the use of UDP port 862, the test management system MUST support the use of UDP port 862, the test management system MUST > set set > STAMP Session-Reflector to use UDP port number, as permitted by STAMP Session-Reflector to use UDP port number, as permitted by > Section 4. The Session-Reflector MUST be set to use the default Section 4. The Session-Reflector MUST be set to use the default > format for its timestamps, NTP. format for its timestamps, NTP. > A STAMP Session-Reflector that supports this specification would A STAMP Session-Reflector that supports this specification will > transmit the base packet (Figure 5) regardless of the size of the transmit the base packet (Figure 5) if it receives a packet > smaller > Padding field in the packet received from TWAMP Session-Sender. than the STAMP base packet. If the packet received from TWAMP > Also, STAMP does not support the Reflect Octets capability Session-Sender is larger than the STAMP base packet, the STAMP > defined in > [RFC6038]. If the Server Octets field is present in the TWAMP Session-Reflector that supports this specification will copy the > Session-Sender packet, STAMP Session-Reflector will not copy the content of the remainder of the received packet to transmit > reflected > content starting from the Server Octets field and will transmit packet of symmetrical size. > the > reflected packet, as displayed in Figure 5. > 5. Operational Considerations 5. Operational Considerations > STAMP is intended to be used on production networks to enable the STAMP is intended to be used on production networks to enable the > operator to assess service level agreements based on packet operator to assess service level agreements based on packet > delay, delay, > delay variation, and loss. When using STAMP over the Internet, delay variation, and loss. When using STAMP over the Internet, > especially when STAMP test packets are transmitted with the especially when STAMP test packets are transmitted with the > destination UDP port number from the User Ports range, the destination UDP port number from the User Ports range, the > possible possible > impact of the STAMP test packets MUST be thoroughly analyzed. The impact of the STAMP test packets MUST be thoroughly analyzed. The > use of STAMP for each case MUST be agreed by users of nodes use of STAMP for each case MUST be agreed by users of nodes > hosting hosting > skipping to change at page 15, line 51 P: skipping to change at page 15, line 51 P: > 9.2. Informative References 9.2. Informative References > [BBF.TR-390] [BBF.TR-390] > "Performance Measurement from IP Edge to Customer "Performance Measurement from IP Edge to Customer > Equipment using TWAMP Light", BBF TR-390, May 2017. Equipment using TWAMP Light", BBF TR-390, May 2017. > [I-D.ietf-ippm-stamp-yang] [I-D.ietf-ippm-stamp-yang] > Mirsky, G., Xiao, M., and W. Luo, "Simple Two-way Active Mirsky, G., Xiao, M., and W. Luo, "Simple Two-way Active > Measurement Protocol (STAMP) Data Model", draft-ietf-ippm- Measurement Protocol (STAMP) Data Model", draft-ietf-ippm- > stamp-yang-04 (work in progress), September 2019. stamp-yang-05 (work in progress), October 2019. > [RFC4868] Kelly, S. and S. Frankel, "Using HMAC-SHA-256, [RFC4868] Kelly, S. and S. Frankel, "Using HMAC-SHA-256, > HMAC-SHA- HMAC-SHA- > 384, and HMAC-SHA-512 with IPsec", RFC 4868, 384, and HMAC-SHA-512 with IPsec", RFC 4868, > DOI 10.17487/RFC4868, May 2007, DOI 10.17487/RFC4868, May 2007, > <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4868>. <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4868>. > [RFC7750] Hedin, J., Mirsky, G., and S. Baillargeon, [RFC7750] Hedin, J., Mirsky, G., and S. Baillargeon, > "Differentiated "Differentiated > Service Code Point and Explicit Congestion Notification Service Code Point and Explicit Congestion Notification > Monitoring in the Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol Monitoring in the Two-Way Active Measurement Protocol > (TWAMP)", RFC 7750, DOI 10.17487/RFC7750, February 2016, (TWAMP)", RFC 7750, DOI 10.17487/RFC7750, February 2016, > End of changes. 7 change blocks. > 21 lines changed or deleted 21 lines changed or added > This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.47. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/
- [ippm] Benjamin Kaduk's No Objection on draft-iet… Benjamin Kaduk via Datatracker
- Re: [ippm] Benjamin Kaduk's No Objection on draft… Greg Mirsky
- Re: [ippm] Benjamin Kaduk's No Objection on draft… Benjamin Kaduk